Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss
These are some of the things that differentiate between people: - Skills
- Background
- Culture
- Religion
- Personality
- Species
Skills are only one part of it. |
Heh. You are correct. I should have qualified that as "the only things that differentiate characters that directly affect game balance are skills".
Within the context of overall "game balance", only skills really matter (ok, spells, abilities, and whatnot, but you get the point). Background matters specifically because of the skills that result (which was Nightshade's point). Culture matters because it affects what cultural skills you may have. Religion matters because it determines both what special skills may be available and what spells your character may learn. Species matters because it determines that base stats and skills your character will have.
Most of those things (including personality) also have significant roleplaying importance, but this thread was about game balance. How you "balance" those aspects are purely up to the GM. You can decide exactly to what degree playing a dark troll may disadvantage someone in your campaign (ranging from "instantly suicidal" to "not at all"). As a GM, you get to decide all on your own whether the player who's snaky get's punished for doing oddball things, or gets rewarded. There's a classic story in our game about a hobbit tossing a stone into a pool "just because" and the fallout it caused (hobbits are evil. Really!).
But all those things are "flavor", and not so much "balance". Systemic game balance, such as the kind Nightshade was talking about derives from skills. My original observation was that in RQ (and BRP systems in general), the negatives from having lower skills aren't nearly as harsh as they are in other games. You're free to choose not to have large skill gaps between characters in an adventure, but the game system itself is much much much more forgiving if/when it happens.